[lbo-talk] Digestimundo vavavoom

[Jim Devine]

On 6/5/05, snitsnat  wrote:> Gouldner doesn't ask about rationality.
He's talking (and so is Carrol) about methodological dualism. The
social scientist (or social commentator) assumes everyone else is
shaped by social forces (e.g., Jim Devine's joking comment that the
reason why women have large breasts all the time, as opp.  to other
mammals was that human males had a fascination with breasts and  thus
selected mates on the basis of breast size).<

it wasn't a joking comment. The anthropolotist Marvin Harris had
suggested this theory (likely citing someone else). I was simply
repeating it as an example of sexual selection, a theory that
sociobiologists reject _a priori_ because it's not reductionist. I
don't know if it's a good theory or not.


> I poked a stick at Jim, asking him if that's what motivated him to marry  his wife. Of course not, he said, but that doesn't matter, what matters is  the behavior of _most_ men. While Jim picked at my use of the word "base"  offlist, it's a red herring. In fact, Jim, like 99.9% of U.S. hetmen will  sy that, while they like breasts (or asses, legs, etc.), they didn't marry  their wives solely because of some physical trait or even partly because of  some physical trait.<

FWIW, it's not whether men marry women that matters as far as
evolution is concerned. It's whether they have kids who survive to
spawn further...

-- 
Jim Devine
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- Karl M., paraphrasing Dante A.